United Ireland Poll - please vote

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have a Tanaiste under criminal investigation while we wait for the Moriarty Report after having just had Mother and Babies report and just after being driven off a cliff in 2008.

Sure lets stick with that...eh?

Other than making a united Ireland less attractive to people from the North, and making the costs greater, what relevance does that comment have to the debate?

blanch152 wrote: »

Other than making a united Ireland less attractive to people from the North, and making the costs greater, what relevance does that comment have to the debate?

I agree having a Tanaiste under criminal investigation and the other stuff makes us unattractive but we need to be truthful if we want a new changed Ireland. We shouldn't cover these things up.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One of the reasons FG FF have gotten away with it for so long are people like yourself.
Carry on.

It’s the lack of a viable alternative that has it the way it is here.

I would vote yes... Any of the craziness from both sides would sort itself out in a generation or two...

bonzothedog wrote: »

Simple question - if there was a poll for a United Ireland would you vote yes or no - or yes but it would have to happen within 10 years.

Assumptions - there is economic sense to it and that Ireland can afford it.

The majority of the north want it and opinion polls are showing this. The background work has been done and the unionists though far from happy have reluctantly agreed with accepting the vote's result.

Haha. Lobbe the assumptions.
How about adding another one. Everyone on the island is promised a lotto win.
I can’t believe you are serious with those assumptions.
And why patronise people with your parameters. The poll is pointless with these caveats.

We can't afford anything we are heavily in debt and with a political class that is almost universally spendrift in outlook. So what difference will the cost of uniting the country make, it also probably qualify for EU funding and maybe US.

Justine McCarthy's commentary in last week's Sunday Times raised an interesting point, she said the FFG parties can condone Arlene Foster meeting Loyalist paramilitaries, can consider and listen to calls for Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth when it was mooted by a FG TD, can approve an RIC commemoration but run a mile when a Border Poll is discussed despite it being an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes I am sure the unionists will be happy with a bit of rioting and that's it.

it's not that they will be happy with it, but rather those who would be willing to engage in such won't be able to do anything else as they will have no support, no help from the british state, no nothing.
given the people of NI would have voted for a UI and realistically, a no vote in the south wouldn't ultimately prevent a UI in the event a majority vote in NI was for reunification, unionists won't have any other choice but to accept and take part in the state or head for the UK itself.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They riot and murder people when they can’t walk down a road

What do you think they will do when they are backed into a corner facing into a united Ireland?

they aren't going to do very much, that is the reality, they have no chance of winning anything, they aren't going to have the support of the british state.
most unionists are not thick, they may not like a UI but they are not going to engage in or support violence in the aim of a cause that they will have lost in the event of a majority vote for reunification in NI.
if there is to be violence, a majority yes in NI but majority no in the south is more likely to cause it then a vote for reunification across the board.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They riot and murder people when they can’t walk down a road

What do you think they will do when they are backed into a corner facing into a united Ireland?

They might. I don't think they can muster a campaign capable of destabilising a new country and not at all sure what the point would be.
But as Emma DeSouza said today, if we allowed fear of offending belligerent Unionists to dictate progress, we wouldn't have so many things we have now, like normalised flag flying, like parades that don't shut down the region for weeks, like the Anglo Irish Agreement, like the GFA and lastly a Protocol and border in the Irish Sea.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Does not matter what the topic, you have the same old drum... FG & FF get elected because they represent the majority view of voters. And they will continue to do so until people change their views. And pretending that it would be different if people had your insight just does not fly because your insights are just no better than anyone else and are clearly in the minority.

Yes, and change is happening...too slowly, but it is happening. Their vote share down from heady heights of 86% to just over 40% in what was a power swap.
Because of strong rising opposition IMO.

Now they are effectively merged.

Definitely in favour. Makes no sense for our island to be divided. A lot of people from the south very quick to dismiss it as it's not what unionists want while ignoring Nationalists who if it goes ahead would be in the majority. ..I don't believe it should be done right away though as a lot will have to be worked out to make it more inclusive for unionists. I know mates that would vote know as it might take a fiver out of their paycheques a week....Sad that for all the history in our country that it would come to that for some. People are happy to ignore the will of their fellow Irish people less than an hour away because they feel they might be slightly inconvenienced. I don't think it would lead to Civil War either...In today's age I feel that support for paramilitaries' is small and wouldn't grow by an amount that made prolonged disorder inevitable if a democratic vote resulted in a united Ireland

Moragle wrote: »

If there was a no vote in the south then how could there be a united Ireland. are you saying the majority opinion of the people in the south should just be ignored if that was the case, and a united Ireland would be forced upon the citizens of the Republic even if they voted against it

yes it would ultimately have to be ignored given that it is really the NI vote that counts and our vote is just a vote for votes sake.
refusing to respect the democratic vote of northern ireland would cause very serious issues compared to a full vote for a UI, as i mentioned it is that situation that is likely to cause serious violence rather then a full yes vote across the board.
britain, the EU and likely the US will ultimately insure a UI happens within the event of a majority vote for reunification by NI.

a very cool kid wrote: »

Total ROI Government revenue pre COVID is ballpark 60 bn euro

Conservatively the NI - UK subvention is 12bn so straightaway you have to raise taxes by around 15-20% (depending on how much extra tax you can tax people in NI).

And that's just to keep the lights on as they stand - before you factor in stuff like bring NI welfare/pension payments up to ROI levels, increasing civil service salaries to parity etc.

Those saying the subvention goes away:

Pensions are paid from the government current account in the UK and ROI, there is no pension pot separate to the government exchequer. Security costs will be about the same as there would likely be Loyalist unrest, also, there is no way a UK government is going to let NI leave without taking a chunk of the UK national debt with it (if only as an example to Scotland).

The EU does not make up the shortfall in government current accounts - they may provide capital funding but we'll need to close that 12bn gap ourselves. I'd imagine Boris will tell us to "Go whistle" also, in any case is it really freedom if you need the Queen's shilling to get by?

most of that 12000000000 is contributions to british institutions such as the royal family, military etc, with those costs gone, bringing benefits and any pension payments that require the ROI to pay up to the same as the republic would be small fry.
anyone receiving a pension in NI for working for the british state would continue to have that pension paid by the UK as they would remain entitled to it given they worked for britain.
realistically tax rises will be coming anyway so any tax rise due to reunification if there were to be any is unlikely to be very much, chances are it would happen anyway.
realistically the UK not allowing NI to leave without taking a chunk of it's national debt is going to end in failure on the UK'S part, and that would be the same with scotland, as realistically the UK can't force somewhere that is no longer part of it to take on it's debt, unless it breaks it's obligations to try and force it, for which that will backfire even further on the UK.
realistically the likely costs of NI are probably going to be less then 10000000000 at the highest rate, which is very affordable to the south.

Jim2007 wrote: »

It makes no sense for the island to be forced in to a UI regardless of what the North wants if we don’t want it, especially since we’d be the ones to pay for it not just in monitory terms, but in sons and daughters lives lost in trying impose a peace on them. Anyone who thinks lives will not be lost in such an exercise is sadly mistaken.

The biggest threat to a UI is the delusion of SF and it’s supporters in thinking a positive outcome is possible in the near future.

A majority vote is democracy. Nobody is being forced...not democrats anyway, who understand the principle that democracies have always operated on. This decision (to abide by the majority view) has been taken and voted on already.